Gross and Inordinate Delay in Initiating Copyright Infringement Claims Negates Equitable Relief: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has sounded a stern warning to copyright holders, emphasizing that the court’s doors for urgent, ad-interim relief are not open to those who sleep on their rights. In a recent judgment delivered by Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar, the court refused to grant an injunction to Everest Entertainment LLP against the release of the film Punha Shivaji Raje Bhosale , citing the "gross and inordinate delay" by the plaintiff.

A Battle of Franchises and Historical Figures

The dispute centered on allegations that the film Punha Shivaji Raje Bhosale , produced by the respondents, infringed upon the copyright and goodwill associated with the earlier, highly successful Marathi film Me Shivajiraje Bhosale Boltoy .

Everest Entertainment LLP, the copyright holder of the older film, argued that the respondents’ work was a "slavish copy" of its script, thematic structure, and promotional materials. They contended that the title and marketing of the new film created "likelihood of confusion and deception" in the market, amounting to both copyright infringement and passing off. The respondents, conversely, maintained that their film was an original work focusing on entirely different narratives—specifically addressing the plight of farmers in Maharashtra—and that the names of historical figures such as Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj could not be claimed as private property.

The Problem of the Eleventh Hour

A significant portion of the High Court's ruling focused on the timeline of the dispute. It was noted that the plaintiff had acknowledged knowledge of the alleged infringement as early as April 2025. Despite sending a legal notice at that time, and again in June and July of 2025, the plaintiff waited until October 10, 2025—just weeks before the film's scheduled release—to initiate the lawsuit.

Justice Jamsandekar observed that this silence was a "calculated move" to place the court and the defendants under extreme pressure. "The litigant who adopts a relaxed approach does not deserve any equity," the court recorded, noting that granting an injunction at this stage would cause irreparable harm to the defendants, who had invested substantial capital in the film’s promotion.

Legal Analysis: Ideas vs. Expressions

Beyond the issue of delay, the court provided a detailed analysis of copyright principles regarding cinematograph films. Referencing the Star India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Leo Burnett precedent, the court clarified that a newly produced film does not infringe on the copyright of a previous film unless it is a "facsimile copy" created by a technical process of duplication.

Furthermore, the court scrutinized the plaintiff’s claim over common Marathi dialogues and cultural symbols. It found the allegations of script infringement to be unsupported, noting that the plaintiff failed to prove significant similarities in the underlying literary work. The court aptly remarked that accepting the plaintiff's claims over common Marathi phrases would effectively "delete" those words from the language for the benefit of a single entity.

Key Observations

The judgment highlighted several critical points regarding the expectations of the court:

• On the standard of equity: "The Courts have consistently taken a view that if the Plaintiff does not take prompt steps to approach the Court, the Court will not be inclined to grant ad-interim relief, particularly when this is about to be the release of a film in a couple of days."
• On competition and creativity: "The Marathi word 'Punha' ... is to merely and aptly describe the return of or coming again of Shivaji in a living form to the planet earth... Therefore, Your Client has no ground to claim that the Film is a passing off."
• On the necessity of prompt action: "This practice of parties claiming copyright infringement coming to Court at the eleventh hour and expecting Courts to drop all other work to listen to and decide their applications on a priority basis must be discouraged."

The Verdict

The court dismissed the application for ad-interim relief, leaving the parties to proceed to a final hearing scheduled for November 2025. By rejecting the plea, the Bombay High Court has reinforced the principle that urgency is not a right that can be "manufactured" by delaying the initiation of a suit, especially when balance of convenience and the rights of the defendant clearly weigh against such last-minute interventions.